Cargando…

Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Despite numerous randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses, there is no increased evidence for the efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We review this evidence, identify and analyse the reasons for this lack of evidence and propose methodolog...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mazurak, Nazar, Broelz, Ellen, Storr, Martin, Enck, Paul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4622129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26351253
http://dx.doi.org/10.5056/jnm15071
_version_ 1782397544540667904
author Mazurak, Nazar
Broelz, Ellen
Storr, Martin
Enck, Paul
author_facet Mazurak, Nazar
Broelz, Ellen
Storr, Martin
Enck, Paul
author_sort Mazurak, Nazar
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND/AIMS: Despite numerous randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses, there is no increased evidence for the efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We review this evidence, identify and analyse the reasons for this lack of evidence and propose methodological improvements for future studies. METHODS: Based on a literature search, we identified 56 papers that matched the purpose of our analyses. Twenty-seven studies used multi-species bacterial preparations and 29 used single-strain probiotics. They were analysed regarding patients included, treatment duration, probiotic dosage, and outcome measures. RESULTS: Trials in both groups suffered from heterogeneity with respect to probiotic concentration, duration of treatment, and other methodological issues (crossover design and underpowered studies). This heterogeneity did not allow the application of a meta-analytic approach and a systematic review was therefore performed instead. Multi-strain preparations combined 2 to 8 different bacterial subspecies, mostly lactobacilli or bifidobacteria, and used variable lengths of treatments. Overall, more than 50% of trials presented negative outcomes. The majority of the single-strain probiotic trials employing lactobacilli or Saccharomyces were negative, whereas trials employing bifidobacteria showed positive results. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of the studies of probiotics in IBS questions the value of meta-analyses. The use of different bacterial strains and different mixtures of these strains, as well as different dosages, are the main contributors to this heterogeneity. Current data provides limited evidence for the efficacy of a small number of single-strain probiotics in IBS (mostly bifidobacteria) and sound studies following strict trial guidelines (Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency guidelines for clinical trials) are needed. We summarised and proposed some methodological issues for future studies in the field.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4622129
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46221292015-10-27 Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It? Mazurak, Nazar Broelz, Ellen Storr, Martin Enck, Paul J Neurogastroenterol Motil Review BACKGROUND/AIMS: Despite numerous randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses, there is no increased evidence for the efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We review this evidence, identify and analyse the reasons for this lack of evidence and propose methodological improvements for future studies. METHODS: Based on a literature search, we identified 56 papers that matched the purpose of our analyses. Twenty-seven studies used multi-species bacterial preparations and 29 used single-strain probiotics. They were analysed regarding patients included, treatment duration, probiotic dosage, and outcome measures. RESULTS: Trials in both groups suffered from heterogeneity with respect to probiotic concentration, duration of treatment, and other methodological issues (crossover design and underpowered studies). This heterogeneity did not allow the application of a meta-analytic approach and a systematic review was therefore performed instead. Multi-strain preparations combined 2 to 8 different bacterial subspecies, mostly lactobacilli or bifidobacteria, and used variable lengths of treatments. Overall, more than 50% of trials presented negative outcomes. The majority of the single-strain probiotic trials employing lactobacilli or Saccharomyces were negative, whereas trials employing bifidobacteria showed positive results. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of the studies of probiotics in IBS questions the value of meta-analyses. The use of different bacterial strains and different mixtures of these strains, as well as different dosages, are the main contributors to this heterogeneity. Current data provides limited evidence for the efficacy of a small number of single-strain probiotics in IBS (mostly bifidobacteria) and sound studies following strict trial guidelines (Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency guidelines for clinical trials) are needed. We summarised and proposed some methodological issues for future studies in the field. Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility 2015-10 2015-10-31 /pmc/articles/PMC4622129/ /pubmed/26351253 http://dx.doi.org/10.5056/jnm15071 Text en © 2015 The Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Mazurak, Nazar
Broelz, Ellen
Storr, Martin
Enck, Paul
Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It?
title Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It?
title_full Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It?
title_fullStr Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It?
title_full_unstemmed Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It?
title_short Probiotic Therapy of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Why Is the Evidence Still Poor and What Can Be Done About It?
title_sort probiotic therapy of the irritable bowel syndrome: why is the evidence still poor and what can be done about it?
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4622129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26351253
http://dx.doi.org/10.5056/jnm15071
work_keys_str_mv AT mazuraknazar probiotictherapyoftheirritablebowelsyndromewhyistheevidencestillpoorandwhatcanbedoneaboutit
AT broelzellen probiotictherapyoftheirritablebowelsyndromewhyistheevidencestillpoorandwhatcanbedoneaboutit
AT storrmartin probiotictherapyoftheirritablebowelsyndromewhyistheevidencestillpoorandwhatcanbedoneaboutit
AT enckpaul probiotictherapyoftheirritablebowelsyndromewhyistheevidencestillpoorandwhatcanbedoneaboutit